The objective of this study was to assess consumer response to the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act. The overwhelming majority of respondents reported they were largely unaffected by the law or dined out more frequently since the law took effect; however, there was a small percentage of consumers that reported dining out less frequently. There were few reports of consumers who stopped dining out altogether or left or entered the city with the specific purpose of dining in a place that suited their smoking preference. The New York City Smoke-Free Air Act appears to have had little impact on the dining out patterns of consumers.
"While previous studies have suggested that smoking bans are easily implemented, selfenforcing , and have a beneficial health impact (Albers et al., 2004; Hyland & Cummings, 1999a; Hyland, Cummings, & Nauenberg, 1999; Siegel et al., 2004; Skeer et al., 2004), these studies were not implemented in an ethnic community of different cultural and social context from that of the mainstream (Fu et al., 2003; Ma et al., 2002). Despite the presence of nosmoking signs, study administrators and observers witnessed forms of smoke in at least 5 businesses including an instance of a worker attempting to hide cigarettes in a cardboard box, a clear hazard. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The study assessed the extent that Philadelphia's smoking ordinance diffused to Chinatown businesses and identified attitudinal and other barriers to implementation. Guided by constructs from Diffusion of Innovations and Theory of Planned Behavior, a cross-sectional study was conducted. The majority of business owners and employees lacked in-depth knowledge of relevant details of the policy, suggesting that the extent of its diffusion was limited. Retail businesses were more likely to witness smoking post-enactment than restaurants and had more difficulty with implementation. A multi-faceted diffusion strategy through communication channels familiar to the Chinatown community is needed to improve implementation and compliance.
American journal of health studies 01/2008; 23(4):162-172.
"Many studies have demonstrated convincing public support for smokefree dining venues (Mullins, Trotter & Letcher 2000; Miller et al. 2002; Trotter & Mullins 2002 in Chapter 8 of this volume). Good compliance by restaurant patrons and restaurants has been observed with these policies (Chapman, Borland & Lal 2001; Miller et al. 2002; Hyland & Cummings 1999). Furthermore, research suggests that over time the majority of smokers adapt well to smokefree policies (Corsun, Young & Enz 1996). "
"Concerns about economic effects of smokefree policies in hospitality venues have been commonly raised when legislation implementing bans is proposed or brought into effect (Wakefield et al. 2002). However, evidence indicates that overall restaurant business is not negatively impacted by the introduction of smoking bans (Glantz & Charlesworth 1999; Hyland, Cummings & Nauenberg 1999; Wakefield et al. 2002). Scollo et al. (in press) reviewed the quality of studies related to the economic impact of smoking restrictions in the hospitality industry and concluded that the highest quality studies reported either no effect or a positive effect on hospitality sales or employment. "
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.